Assessment of Awareness of Local Anaesthetic Systemic Toxicity (LAST) among Postgraduate Trainees.

Introduction: Although uncommon, local anaesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) may impose fatal risk to the patients. We investigated the awareness of LAST and knowledge on local anaesthetics among our postgraduate trainees. Materials and Methods: A total of 134 postgraduate trainees from the departments of general surgery (Surgical), orthopaedic surgery (Ortho), otorhinolaryngology (ENT), obstetrics and gynaecology (OBGYN), as well as anaesthesiology and intensive care (Anaesth) were recruited. A validated questionnaire was used to assess awareness and knowledge. All participants attended a medical-education session and completed the questionnaire as preassessment and postassessment. Data were analysed, and comparisons between disciplines were conducted. Results: The trainees' awareness of LAST was overall poor at preassessment which improved almost 6-folds at postassessment. Surprisingly, only 20 (45.5%) participants from the anaesthesiology group had awareness of LAST at preassessment, and none of the participants were from surgical, orthopaedic, and obstetrics and gynaecology departments. Preassessment scores were significantly higher in the anaesth group as compared to all other groups; with a difference in the average score for Anaesth vs Surgical of 3.46 (95%, CI:2.17, 4.74), Anaesth vs Ortho of 3.64 (95%, CI:2.64, 4.64), Anaesth vs ENT of 3.43 (95%, CI:2.20, 4.67), and Anaesth vs OBGYN of 6.93 (95%, CI:5.64, 8.21). However, there was no significant difference of awareness scores between all participants at postassessment scores. Conclusion: The overall level of awareness was poor. However, the implementation of an education session significantly improved the knowledge and awareness across all disciplines.

Cost-Effectiveness of Long-Term Ticagrelor in Patients With Prior Myocardial Infarction: Results From the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with a myocardial infarction (MI) 1 to 3 years earlier, treatment with ticagrelor + low-dose aspirin (ASA) reduces the risk of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, or stroke compared with low-dose aspirin alone, but at an increased risk of major bleeding. OBJECTIVES: The authors evaluated cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor + low-dose ASA in patients with prior MI within the prior 3 years. METHODS: The authors performed a prospective economic substudy alongside the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 54) trial, which randomized 21,162 patients to ASA alone, ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily + low-dose ASA, or ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily + low-dose ASA. Medical resource use data were collected over a median 33-month follow-up. Costs were assessed from the U.S. health care system perspective. In-trial data relating to survival, utility, and costs were combined with lifetime projections to evaluate lifetime cost-effectiveness of the Food and Drug Administration-approved lower-dose ticagrelor regimen (60 mg twice daily). RESULTS: Hospitalization costs were similar for ticagrelor 60 mg and placebo ($2,262 vs. $2,333; 95% confidence interval for difference -$303 to $163; p = 0.54); after inclusion of a daily ticagrelor 60 mg cost of $10.52, total costs were higher for ticagrelor ($10,016 vs. $2,333; 95% CI: $7,441 to $7,930; p < 0.001). In-trial quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were similar (2.28 vs. 2.27; p = 0.34). Over a lifetime horizon, ticagrelor was associated with QALY gains of 0.078 and incremental costs of $7,435, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $94,917/QALY gained. Several high-risk groups had more favorable ICERs, including patients with >1 prior MI, multivessel disease, diabetes, renal dysfunction (all with ICERs $50,000 to $70,000/QALY gained), patients age <75 years (ICER = $44,779/QALY gained), and patients with peripheral artery disease (ICER = $13,427/QALY gained). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with a history of MI >1 year previously, long-term treatment with ticagrelor 60 mg + low-dose ASA yields a cost-effectiveness ratio suggesting intermediate value based on current guidelines. Ticagrelor appears to provide higher value for patients in several recognized high-risk subgroups. (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events [e.g., Death From Heart or Vascular Disease, Heart Attack, or Stroke] in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin [PEGASUS]; NCT01225562).

Predictors and variability of drug-eluting vs bare-metal stent selection in contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the PRISM study.

Drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce risk of in-stent restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) but require dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for a longer term than bare-metal stents (BMS). Few studies have examined clinical predictors of DES vs BMS, and variability in provider selection between DES and BMS in clinical practice has not been well described. These insights can inform our understanding of current practice and may identify opportunities to improve decision-making stent selection decinsion-making. In a multicenter registry, 3295 consecutive patients underwent PCI by 158 interventional cardiologists across 10 US sites. Eighty percent of patients with treated with DES. Using hierarchical regression, diabetes mellitus, multivessel disease, health insurance, and white race were independently associated with greater DES use, whereas increasing age, history of hypertension, anticipated surgery, use of warfarin, lower hemoglobin, prior history of bleeding, and treatment of right coronary and left circumflex artery lesions as compared with PCI of left anterior descending artery were associated with lower likelihood of receiving DES. Adjusted rates of DES use across providers varied from 52.3% to 94.6%, and adjusted median odds ratio for DES selection was 1.69. DES selection appeared to reflect physicians' attempts to balance benefits of DES against risks of prolonged DAPT. Nevertheless, marked residual variability in DES selection across providers persisted after adjusting for predictors of restenosis, bleeding, and other factors. Further studies are needed to better understand drivers of this variability and identify the impact of patient and provider preferences on stent selection at the time of PCI.

Beyond restenosis: Patients' preference for drug eluting or bare metal stents.

OBJECTIVES: To assess patients' perspective about factors associated with stent choice. BACKGROUND: Drug eluting stents (DES) markedly reduce the risk of repeat percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but necessitate a longer duration of dual anti-platelet therapy (DAPT) as compared with bare metal stents (BMS). Thus, understanding patients' perspective about factors associated with stent choice is paramount. METHODS: Patients undergoing angiography rated, on a 10-point scale, the importance (1 = not important, 10 = most important) of avoiding repeat revascularization and avoiding the following potential DAPT drawbacks: bleeding/bruising, more pills/day, medication costs and delaying elective surgery. The factor, or group of factors, that was rated highest by each patient was identified. RESULTS: Among 311 patients, repeat revascularization was the single most important consideration to 14.4% of patients, while 20.6% considered avoiding one of the DAPT drawbacks as most important. Most patients (65%) considered avoiding at least one DAPT drawback as important as avoiding repeat revascularization. In no subgroup of patients did more than a quarter of patients prefer avoiding repeat revascularization above all other concerns. Among patients undergoing PCI, more than three quarters received a DES, regardless of their stated preferences (DES use among those most valuing DES benefits, avoiding DAPT drawbacks, or both equally were 78.7%, 86.2%, and 85.6%, respectively, P = 0.56). CONCLUSION: Most patients reported that avoiding DAPT drawbacks was as important as avoiding repeat revascularization. Eliciting patient preferences regarding stent type can enhance shared decision-making and allow physicians to better tailor stent choice to patients' goals and values. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Developing and Testing a Personalized Evidence-based Shared Decision-making Tool for Stent Selection (DECIDE-PCI). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02046902. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02046902 © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The prevalence and management of angina among patients with chronic coronary artery disease across US outpatient cardiology practices: insights from the Angina Prevalence and Provider Evaluation of Angina Relief (APPEAR) study.

Although eliminating angina is a primary goal in treating patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD), few contemporary data quantify prevalence and severity of angina across US cardiology practices. The authors hypothesized that angina among outpatients with CAD managed by US cardiologists is low and its prevalence varies by site. Among 25 US outpatient cardiology clinics enrolled in the American College of Cardiology Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence (PINNACLE) registry, we prospectively recruited a consecutive sample of patients with chronic CAD over a 1- to 2-week period at each site between April 2013 and July 2015, irrespective of the reason for their appointment. Eligible patients had documented history of CAD (prior acute coronary syndrome, prior coronary revascularization procedure, or diagnosis of stable angina) and ≥1 prior office visit at the practice site. Angina was assessed directly from patients using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency score. Among 1257 patients from 25 sites, 7.6% (n = 96) reported daily/weekly, 25.1% (n = 315) monthly, and 67.3% (n = 846) no angina. The proportion of patients with daily/weekly angina at each site ranged from 2.0% to 24.0%, but just over half (56.3%) were on ≥2 antianginal medications, with wide variability across sites (0%-100%). One-third of outpatients with chronic CAD managed by cardiologists report having angina in the prior month, and 7.6% have frequent symptoms. Among those with frequent angina, just over half were on ≥2 antianginal medications, with wide variability across sites. These findings suggest an opportunity to improve symptom control.